I think everyone with sticker shock will be more happy with the body-only price, when it comes. In fact, Nikon may be gauging response to the kit price before they finalize the body-only pricing. A lot of people will want this body to use with their existing 1-series kit and also with the FT-1 and F-mount lenses.

The Kit lens is $299 separately, and it's safe to assume the viewfinder and grip both are approximately $200 each. Subtract that from the kit price and you get $500, which IMO would be very competitive for this body. I realize you usually get a discount with kit bundles, so maybe $549 or $599. Still OK IMO.

For those of you saying it needs a bigger sensor, that would require them to abandon their entire line of lenses, the mount, and accessories like the FT-1. The sensor size works well. When the V1 came out, the 1" sensor had the same image quality as the M43 competition. The Sony RX100 II and it's 1" sensor is also selling very well at $750, and it's just a P&S. Larger sensors also mean larger, heavier, and less compact glass especially as you get in the mid-tele range. There is also no large sensor mirrorless camera that has even close to the same AF, FPS, or buffer. That is likely an advantage of the smaller sensor as well, and one area Nikon maintains a huge one-up over the competition.

VinnieJ wrote:
They would have to change the mount otherwise it will end up looking like the Pentax K-01. In other words it would probably be at least twice as thick.

I understand the technical limitations of the existing design, but putting that aside, Sony made the A7, Fuji has the X-series and Olympus/Panasonic have Micro Four Thirds. The big complaint about those mirrorless cameras if AF speed and tracking, yet Nikon has seemed to work that out very well in these cameras. Why have they chosen not to compete, when it seems like they could easily dominate that market?

myam203 wrote:
I understand the technical limitations of the existing design, but putting that aside, Sony made the A7, Fuji has the X-series and Olympus/Panasonic have Micro Four Thirds. The big complaint about those mirrorless cameras if AF speed and tracking, yet Nikon has seemed to work that out very well in these cameras. Why have they chosen not to compete, when it seems like they could easily dominate that market?

Then two different mounts for their DX line? Not to mention a whole new lineup of DX lenses. They already have issues supporting their current DX lens lineup.

myam203 wrote:
I understand the technical limitations of the existing design, but putting that aside, Sony made the A7, Fuji has the X-series and Olympus/Panasonic have Micro Four Thirds. The big complaint about those mirrorless cameras if AF speed and tracking, yet Nikon has seemed to work that out very well in these cameras. Why have they chosen not to compete, when it seems like they could easily dominate that market?

I don't shoot wildlife but I think Nikon found a nice, little niche market in wildlife shooters not able to shell out $10,000+ on a long tele-prime. This kinda explains (at least to me) why Nikon is still making the V series despite not being competitive at all with the rest of the market.

With the features provided (naturally high crop, good image quality, unbeatable mirrorless AF performance) in the V series, you get a very good wildlife camera without breaking the bank (or your back). One can even say as a wildlife shooter, you're most versatile with the V series since you don't have to carry huge gear to get your shot and you're not limited anymore as to where you can setup to take your shot.

VinnieJ wrote:
Then two different mounts for their DX line? Not to mention a whole new lineup of DX lenses. They already have issues supporting their current DX lens lineup.

I don't know if they have issues or not, but they certainly seem to choose to ignore serious DX shooters with their 1,001 variations of 18-XXXmm lenses and no pro bodies.

dannywkyang wrote:
I don't shoot wildlife but I think Nikon found a nice, little niche market in wildlife shooters not able to shell out $10,000+ on a long tele-prime. This kinda explains (at least to me) why Nikon is still making the V series despite not being competitive at all with the rest of the market.

With the features provided (naturally high crop, good image quality, unbeatable mirrorless AF performance) in the V series, you get a very good wildlife camera without breaking the bank (or your back). One can even say as a wildlife shooter, you're most versatile with the V series since you don't have to carry huge gear to get your shot and you're not limited anymore as to where you can setup to take your shot....Show more →

This is true, and I'm not saying these aren't great cameras, but I just think Nikon is missing the big boat here. I know someone will say "go buy a Sony/Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic then, you have plenty of options", but I want the Nikon version, because I think they could do it better.

Nikon's CX system seems pretty cool and they keep improving the V# level body in good ways. The lens line-up is slowly filling out too. Kudo to Nikon for that.

What I don't get is the price. We have all-in-one super-zoom P&S cameras for <$500 and similarly you can purchase an entry level DSLR for ~ $500 with a kit lens. Yet somehow the CS system is so much more expensive. I thought the whole point of mirrorless was that it reduces cost. If Nikon would use that model, they would slaughter the competition ... but instead they are going for Cadillac prices. And it's not just the bodies, but the lenses too; e.g. a $100 70-300 when the DSLR version is $100 less? I don't get it.

Too bad, because the V3 looks very interesting as a compliment to my DSLR system.

VinnieJ wrote:
Then two different mounts for their DX line? Not to mention a whole new lineup of DX lenses. They already have issues supporting their current DX lens lineup.
******************************************

The larger idea that Nikon missed completely was that mirrorless allows two things:

1) smaller for the same sensor
2) lower cost for the same sensor

Nikon seems to have gotten the smaller bit ... unfortunately with a small sensor. And they completely missed the "lower cost" part of the equation. Someone at Nikon is getting greedy and going for high margins but at the cost of being competitive in an over-all shrinking camera market.

What Nikon should have done in introduced a consumer-level mirrorless DX F-mount body nearly identical to the D3XXX to reduced costs ... split the cost savings with consumers thus improving margin and lower prices at the same time. Then follow up that winning position with a similar smaller body with a new mount but still DX sensor size and the corresponding lens line-up ... in other words, CX with a DX sensor and prices similar to the corresponding DSLR. At the same time, scrap most of the P&S business.

Get lean and mean and don't worry about self-scavenging as either way it's a sale ... but the low prices with high performance will eat at the competition.

As for the V3 .. if you are going to charge that price, make it slightly larger (F-mount & DX) and use it to replace the D5XXX series.

I just pre ordered, i made a nice 20x30 print with my nikon J1 so I am gambling that this new sensor will be almost twice as good actually the adjustable viewing screen is all i really wanted for an upgrade...everything else is just a bonus. thank you nikon.

Rarely is a consumer business's most profitable segment/products their best and most expensive products. How many P&S do they build and sell for every DSLR? My guess is that their total margin on each P&S is a higher percentage than for each top end DSLR camera or pro level lens.

Rarely is a consumer business's most profitable segment/products their best and most expensive products. How many P&S do they build and sell for every DSLR? My guess is that their total margin on each P&S is a higher percentage than for each top end DSLR camera or pro level lens.

Most profitable and quickly shrinking. They need to reduce the number of models they offer to reduce R&D and production costs ... the more proper statement is "scrap most of the P&S line-up" and focus on a few bodies that give people what they want.

Long term, the P&S is going extinct except as an accessory to a smart phone.